linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070819083827.GA83@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:38:27 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec

On 08/18, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Maybe it can use wait_task_inactive, which IIUC is being changed to address
> the same RT issue.

The group_leader can sleep before it enters exit_notify(). In that case
wait_task_inactive() returns, and we still need some polling to wait for
EXIT_ZOMBIE.

> OTOH, notify_count exists only for this.  So maybe the
> better way is to clean that whole mechanism up somehow.

Yes sure. But in any case I think we should avoid polling, we need some
notification from exit_notify().

> The exit.c changes
> in your patch seem to be making it more mysterious rather than less so.

I completely agree.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/